|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 547 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 692 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... g, watering and oiling, drying, dehusking, splitting and sorting & polishing etc. and thereafter weighing and packaging. If the totality of facts are analysed, we find that the end product is altogether commercially different item from the raw material. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has also relied upon various decisions including the decision of the Tribunal, relied upon before us. Even otherwise, the Revenue has neither contradicted the facts from the earlier year nor brought out any judicial pronouncement in its favour, consequently, in view of the facts and the judicial pronouncements mentioned in the order of the Tribunal (supra), it is very much clear that the assessee is very much entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(3)(ii) of the Act, therefore, the stand of the ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2012 (2) TMI 691 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... of the case are the same, except for the quantum of qualifying investments under section 54F. In the present case, qualifying investment, as noted by the Assessing Officer himself, is ₹ 1,59,50,000. Since this amount is the same as the gross consideration received by the assessee for surrendering tenancy rights, entire capital gains on surrender of tenancy rights will be outside the ambit of taxable capital gains. 6. For the reasons set out above, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. Grievance raised by the assessee in the cross objection, for the same reasons as in the case of Tejinder Singh (supra), are rendered academic and donot call for any adjudication on merits. The cross objections are dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer as also the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on 29th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 690 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e by quashing the impugned notice dated 30th March 2009 (Exhibit 'J'). There shall be no order as to costs.” 14. It is well settled that the validity of a re-opening of assessment is to be tested on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer prior to the issue of notice under section 148, and no additions can be made to such reasons. The first appellate authority was in error in doing so. The reopening is beyond four years and there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the as to disclose fully and truly all material facts and as there is a change of opinion, he concluded that the re-opening has to be held as bad-in-law. 15. As we have upheld the contentions of the assessee that the re-opening is bad-in-law, we do not require adjudication of other issues on merit, as it would be an academic exercise. 16. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th February 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 689 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... he case of CIT vs. Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (254 ITR 697) (Bom) further supports the case of the assessee. Exemption of interest income will be available only if it has arisen in the course of business of banking and not otherwise as was held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.P. Cooperative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (100 ITR 472). In view of these facts and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove and especially when no contrary decision was brought to our notice by either side and also the ld. Representatives from both sides consented that the facts are identical to assessment year 2007- 08, therefore, by following the aforesaid decision, we affirm the stand of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 21.2.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 688 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ntions raised by the assessee have not been duly considered by AO. The observations about the assessee’s convertible debentures/ warrants because of the lock in period becoming capital asset has also not been substantiated in a justified manner. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the issue back to the file of AO to consider the same afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and keeping in mind the Bombay High Court judgment (supra). 5.1. Apropos ground no. 2, in our view on this issue also lower authorities have not considered the assessee’s claim u/s 36(1)(iii). Besides, setting aside the above issue will have a material bearing on the issue about 14A. In view thereof, we are inclined to set aside this issue also back to the file of AO for decision afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 13-02-2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 687 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... tative for the assessee was trying to rely upon the Budget Speech and other Acts like the Companies Act and the decisions rendered by the various High Courts in different contexts to drive his point, in our opinion, his exercise is merely an academic one and does not improve his case before us. On the other hand, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has written a detailed order after considering all the submissions and case laws extracted as above, and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. As such, though we appreciate the effort of the learned representative for the assessee to bring home his point, we are unable to accept his contentions to reverse the impugned order, which is reasoned one with which we are in agreement. Hence, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismiss the assessee's appeal. 10. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 24.02.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 686 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... same. The Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision of Third Member of the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri. D.N. Kamani (70 ITD 77 (Pat)(TM ) where addition on “on-money” on sale of flats based on presumption was deleted. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.K.E. Menon (2001) 248 ITR 310 (Bom) cited before the Ld CIT(A), has been pleased to explain the provisions of block assessment and regular assessment and has concluded that the provisions of block assessment are separate and different from regular assessment and the A.O must not make roving enquiries while making block assessment but only consider the documents and material found in the course of search action. Under these circumstances, we do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on this issue. The same is upheld. The ground No. 6 is accordingly rejected. 13. In result, appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 13th February 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 685 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... covered by judgment dated 19th/20th January, 2012, of another Division Bench of this Court (Dr.D. Y. Chandrachud and A.A. Sayed, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.1456 of 2010 and cognate petitions. 3. Following the aforesaid decision, this petition is also dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the service tax payable by the petitioner will be paid by the petitioner under protest and without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the special leave petition which the petitioner will be filing for challenging this decision.
-
2012 (2) TMI 684 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... winding up company, the same are to be distributed paripassu towards satisfaction of liabilities as existed at the commencement of the winding up proceedings. It is not the case whether the assets of the winding up company have been sold and the liabilities as existed at the commencement of winding up proceedings are being distributed. On the other hand, it is the income which has been earned on the fixed deposits and on which the statutory liability of payment of TDS has arisen and for non-compliance of the statutory provision by the appellant bank on account of non-deduction of TDS on the interest credited/paid, the proceedings have been initiated to recover the tax due from the appellant bank. 11. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold his order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the appellant bank. 12. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 24th February, 2012
-
2012 (2) TMI 683 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on 23(1)(a) as if the property was let out in view of the provisions of section 23(4)(b). Therefore, the revenue authorities are justified in taxing the second house property on the basis of fair rental value. However, the assessee has made a claim that the second SOP was covered under Rent Control Act. In case rent of the property is covered under Rent Control Act, ALV can not exceed the standard rent determined/determinable under the said Act in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushik (131 ITR 435). This aspect has not been examined by the authorities below. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of the observations made above and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.2.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 682 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well-accepted rule of construction.” 17. Coming to the facts of the present case, the assessee having purchased the new property vide sale deed dated 21.1.2011. For this agreement of sale was entered on 29.11.2010 along with the contract for construction on 29.11.2010 and construction was completed before the sale deed is executed and the cost of the building was paid between 28.11.2010 to 18.1.2011. In our opinion, we have to take a liberal view of the beneficial provisions of section 54F and remodelling or renovation of the house to make it habitable to suit the requirement of the assessee and thereby we have to hold that the provisions of section 54F have been complied with by the assessee. In our opinion, deduction u/s. 54F has to be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 681 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 58,100/- disallowed by the AO out of the amount of ₹ 4,39,089/- relating to repairs and maintenance, on the ground that the said amount is simply contribution toward a repair fund and not an actual expense incurred by the assessee in respect of any repair of office building or equipment, therefore, the same cannot be allowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 23. After hearing the parties, perusing the record as well as the orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that though the assessee has not incurred the said amount, the same was paid towards repair fund, which is meant for using as and when any repair of office building or equipment is taken place. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made by the AO on this count and the ground raised by the asesssee is allowed. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 680 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... at the assessee cannot be aggrieved of this revision order because the Commissioner has decided nothing against the assessee, and the assessee will have full opportunity of presenting his case to the Assessing Officer. This contention is too naïve to meet any judicial approval. If we have to accept this contention, the concept of finality of assessment will have to be buried deep and time limit for framing the assessments will have to be ignored altogether. The scheme of the Income Tax Act, in our humble understanding, does not visualize unfettered discretions being conferred upon the Commissioners to tinker with the completed assessments. We reject this contention as well. 10. For the reasons set out above, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and quash the impugned revision order. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on 17th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 679 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... the conditions regarding assessee being registered as well as beneficial shareholder of the lender company are required to be established. In case any of the conditions is not satisfied then deeming provisions contained u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be attracted. Since in the present case, the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and confirm the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.” We, therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, hold that the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company. As such, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we confirm the same. Ground No. 2 is accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and dispense from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in terms of our order dated 17.01.2012 The respondents have filed their reply to the prayers made in the application. After the matter was argued for quite some time, learned senior counsel, Sh. Gupta, appearing for the respondent State, on instructions would submit, that since the petitioners had the benefit of an interim order, passed by the High Court from October, 2007 till the date of the impugned order, the same may be continued till the disposal of the special leave petition. We appreciate the stand of the learned senior counsel. Accordingly, we modify our interim order only to the following extent - "That the directions issued by us directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the accrued tax liability/arrears need not be furnished by the petitioners/applicants during the pendency of the special leave petition." In terms of the aforesaid order, the application is disposed of.
-
2012 (2) TMI 677 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... so worked out by applying net profit rate 3.3 % is required to be reduced by the amounts surrendered by the assessee amounting to ₹ 89,61,911/- in case of Anant Steels Limited and ₹ 57,23,421/- in case of Shivangi Estates Limited. Thus, the total income surrendered for excess stock amounting to ₹ 147.03 lakhs is required to be reduced out of unaccounted profit earned by the assessee as worked out in the manner stated hereinabove. The Assessing Officer is further directed to distribute the balance amount of unaccounted profit in the ratio of turnover of these companies as found by the Assessing Officer himself in the return of income for assessment year 2006-07, which was ₹ 33.61 crores in case of Anant Steels Private Limited and ₹ 25.16 crores in case of Shivangi Estates Limited. We direct accordingly. 18. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 13th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 676 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench (supra) but the ITAT “G” Bench Mumbai, in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Girish M. Shah in ITA No. 3582/Mum/2009 dated 17.02.2010, preferred to follow the decision taken by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Prema P. Shah. He also submitted that the Tribunal has chosen to apply the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 to hold that even if there are two views possible on the issue, the one which is favourable to the assessee has to be taken and accordingly supported the view taken by the learned CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the light of the subsequent decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench (supra) we are of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th February 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 675 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... defence to be decided by the court trying the case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since sufficient averments attracting of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are the foundation of the complaint and it is further averred that cheques were issued with mischievous, dishonest intention, knowingly and willingly to cheat the complainant-company. The arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant do not require any further deliberation in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code since quashing the complaint would not secure ends of justice but would result into miscarriage of justice. However, the court taking up the Negotiable Instruments Act cases shall not be influenced by the observation made hereinabove and shall dispose of all the cases within six months from the date of receipt of the writ/order of this court as they are pending since 1996. In the absence of merits, these applications are summarily rejected. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 674 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... m the above provision of law it is clear that only member or creditor of the company or RoC, can make an application to the CLB and upon receipt of the same the CLB can direct the company and any officer thereof to make good the default. It is unequivocal that only member, creditor or Registrar can apply to the CLB if it is an admitted fact and there is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the status of creditor. In such cases only the CLB may direct the company to make good the default. As stated supra in the present case, there is a serious dispute with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to apply to the CLB in the capacity as creditor. Therefore, this Bench does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner is a creditor or not. In view of the facts and reasons as stated above, the petition is miserably failed and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the directions of the hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is complied with.
-
2012 (2) TMI 673 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... on and as it could not be substantiated that the issue is in connection with the extension of business or setting up of new industrial undertaking, the assessee is not eligible for claim under section 35D. The nature of expenses are listed out at para 6 of the assessment order. As there is no controversy on the issue whether the assessee has incurred this expenditure or not and as the nature of expenditure reflect that they are revenue in nature and as the assessee has not got any enduring benefit, we uphold the contention of the assessee and hold that the expenditure is allowable under section 37.” 24. In view of the above, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 25. No other point has been urged by the Revenue except the above point. 26. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2012.
........
|
